A hyperbolic headline on Drudge, for an article by the leftist AP, entitled , "Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense? "

Here is your ObamaCare Nanny State in full bloom.

Tyrannical "public health experts" deciding how to "herd the cattle" to stop smoking and getting fat...let 'em die? Fine them? Shame them with posters and public health commercials? Whatever serves the State interest...

The experts are frustrated because "attempts to curb smoking and unhealthy eating frequently lead to backlash..." How dare the peasants raise a ruckus! Their betters know what is good for them...

"This is my life. I should be able to do what I want," said Sebastian Lopez, a college student from Queens.... that is almost certainly not what he is being taught in college..

"If I'm obese, the health care costs are not totally borne by me. They're borne by other people in my health insurance plan and - when I'm older - by Medicare," [expert]Cawley said.

Your Nanny State doesnt want you to get fat or smoke. Is it because they love you? Um,no, it is only because you consume food and medical care that your Nanny State decides may be better used on younger clones who can serve the Almighty Government's needs...

These "public health experts" tell us the poor are very obese...yet our Government in its wisdom subsidizes 40 million Americans to buy Cheetos and Doritos with food stamps.

These "public health experts" tell us smoking kills..yet the Government directly benefits from tobacco sales with huge taxes....

'Public health' experts will create a spreadsheet, and based on that, your Nanny State will look at you, your age, overall health, political party (no doubt), and usefulness...and decide what, if any, medical treatment is warranted...

Remember a vice presidential candidate's rant about what a "death panel" was doing -- which was, at the time, actually the death panel appointed by President Bush, dominated by insurance industry representatives, and without one medical doctor?

Again, what is our Virginian's therefore? Or were any of the words in the OP his, this time?

Smokers are heavily taxed and the revenue goes to health programs like SCHIP and Medicaid. I think that's a good approach - if there are foods contributing to our health care costs, tax them to help pay for our health care costs. No nanny state - you can do what you want, but if it's in the best interest of the country to make a salad less expensive than a whopper, what's the problem?

Where are the moonbat knuckleheads accusing these people of just letting smokers and fat people die in the streets?

Oh, they are probably the hypocrites making this suggestion.

Smokers and fat people definitely cause increased health costs that get thrown into the claims pile with everyone else's. Yes they cause the rest of the pool to pay more than they would otherwise.

Why are the moonbats suddenly pointing fingers at someone to take responsibility for themselves? When the responsible have to pay extra for layabouts to be covered, where are the moonbats to point fingers then? Nowhere to be found except to call the people that pay for all this "selfish" when they want layabouts to called to account for their responsibilities.

This has been Bail Out Nation for decades - for people and the select corporations. Why stop now?

Oh, are we running out of money??

I don't think liberals ever had a problem with taxing unhealthy foods and tobacco to help pay for shared medical costs. I don't think liberals have a problem with regulating what can be bought with food stamps, either. In fact, my guess is the corn industry has more to do with the lack of regulation than any ideology.

The only time any party has been accused of 'letting people die in the streets' is when they try to block legislation designed to help insure the uninsured.

Smokers are heavily taxed and the revenue goes to health programs like SCHIP and Medicaid. I think that's a good approach - if there are foods contributing to our health care costs, tax them to help pay for our health care costs. No nanny state - you can do what you want, but if it's in the best interest of the country to make a salad less expensive than a whopper, what's the problem?

I agree...I am all for the sin taxes..with the proceeds going to offset health costs for people who choose to live unhealthy lives.

I don't buy soda..or cigarettes..or fast food. Let the people who do these things cover their own health costs.

Smokers are heavily taxed and the revenue goes to health programs like SCHIP and Medicaid. I think that's a good approach - if there are foods contributing to our health care costs, tax them to help pay for our health care costs. No nanny state - you can do what you want, but if it's in the best interest of the country to make a salad less expensive than a whopper, what's the problem?

I agree...I am all for the sin taxes..with the proceeds going to offset health costs for people who choose to live unhealthy lives.

I don't buy soda..or cigarettes..or fast food. Let the people who do these things cover their own health costs.

I live the same lifestyle.

However, this is the problem with government being invlvived in health care. the government should not be in the business of making some lifestyle choices acceptable, others not. Simply is not the role of government.

That, and the fact that smokers spend less on healht care, and socisla security, and Medicare, because they don't live as long. there is a social security study somewhere that actually bemoans the fact that people are smoking less and therefore living longer, drawing more social security, which will bankrupt the system.

Smokers are heavily taxed and the revenue goes to health programs like SCHIP and Medicaid. I think that's a good approach - if there are foods contributing to our health care costs, tax them to help pay for our health care costs. No nanny state - you can do what you want, but if it's in the best interest of the country to make a salad less expensive than a whopper, what's the problem?

I agree...I am all for the sin taxes..with the proceeds going to offset health costs for people who choose to live unhealthy lives.

I don't buy soda..or cigarettes..or fast food. Let the people who do these things cover their own health costs.

I live the same lifestyle.

However, this is the problem with government being invlvived in health care. the government should not be in the business of making some lifestyle choices acceptable, others not. Simply is not the role of government.

That, and the fact that smokers spend less on healht care, and socisla security, and Medicare, because they don't live as long. there is a social security study somewhere that actually bemoans the fact that people are smoking less and therefore living longer, drawing more social security, which will bankrupt the system.

Even if you take the government out of the equation, you still have the same problem with your insurance carrier. They can't police everybody's intake, and poor diet and lack of exercise does not always manifest in obvious ways (like obesity), but invariably leads to health issues. With or without the government involved, you wind up paying for the health complications of people who don't take care of themselves. Only with government involvement can you enforce some measure of accountability.

Smokers are heavily taxed and the revenue goes to health programs like SCHIP and Medicaid. I think that's a good approach - if there are foods contributing to our health care costs, tax them to help pay for our health care costs. No nanny state - you can do what you want, but if it's in the best interest of the country to make a salad less expensive than a whopper, what's the problem?

I agree...I am all for the sin taxes..with the proceeds going to offset health costs for people who choose to live unhealthy lives.

I don't buy soda..or cigarettes..or fast food. Let the people who do these things cover their own health costs.

I live the same lifestyle.

However, this is the problem with government being invlvived in health care. the government should not be in the business of making some lifestyle choices acceptable, others not. Simply is not the role of government.

That, and the fact that smokers spend less on healht care, and socisla security, and Medicare, because they don't live as long. there is a social security study somewhere that actually bemoans the fact that people are smoking less and therefore living longer, drawing more social security, which will bankrupt the system.

Even if you take the government out of the equation, you still have the same problem with your insurance carrier. They can't police everybody's intake, and poor diet and lack of exercise does not always manifest in obvious ways (like obesity), but invariably leads to health issues. With or without the government involved, you wind up paying for the health complications of people who don't take care of themselves. Only with government involvement can you enforce some measure of accountability.

Once again..I agree. Government in this case has very little to do with how insurance companies set rates based on risk. I know for our company the rates have gone up or down over the years based on the cost of employee claims.

In cases of public health issues that wind up costing everyone more money and affecting the health of citizens then it is appropriate for the government to step in and find a way to pay for it that doesn't affect everyone. Smoking was a problem for everyone.

I actually think Skeeter's comment is kind of funny. Sounds like all for people dying early so that it cost the government less. That sounds more like a death panel to me than anything Obamacare has suggested.

Call it a tax, if you like. Same difference. The private insurance market/sector has gone ahead and done what some people say the govt shouldn't.

Note the govt allows this to happen through the dreaded "regulation" of private insurers.

As for the palinism: death panels...that is in the works as well...termed "end-of-life care", its status will only grow as the legions of baby boomers get older and more broke from the runaway health care sector.

Smokers are heavily taxed and the revenue goes to health programs like SCHIP and Medicaid. I think that's a good approach - if there are foods contributing to our health care costs, tax them to help pay for our health care costs. No nanny state - you can do what you want, but if it's in the best interest of the country to make a salad less expensive than a whopper, what's the problem?

I agree...I am all for the sin taxes..with the proceeds going to offset health costs for people who choose to live unhealthy lives.

I don't buy soda..or cigarettes..or fast food. Let the people who do these things cover their own health costs.

I live the same lifestyle.

However, this is the problem with government being invlvived in health care. the government should not be in the business of making some lifestyle choices acceptable, others not. Simply is not the role of government.

That, and the fact that smokers spend less on healht care, and socisla security, and Medicare, because they don't live as long. there is a social security study somewhere that actually bemoans the fact that people are smoking less and therefore living longer, drawing more social security, which will bankrupt the system.

Even if you take the government out of the equation, you still have the same problem with your insurance carrier. They can't police everybody's intake, and poor diet and lack of exercise does not always manifest in obvious ways (like obesity), but invariably leads to health issues. With or without the government involved, you wind up paying for the health complications of people who don't take care of themselves. Only with government involvement can you enforce some measure of accountability.

Once again..I agree. Government in this case has very little to do with how insurance companies set rates based on risk. I know for our company the rates have gone up or down over the years based on the cost of employee claims.

In cases of public health issues that wind up costing everyone more money and affecting the health of citizens then it is appropriate for the government to step in and find a way to pay for it that doesn't affect everyone. Smoking was a problem for everyone.

I actually think Skeeter's comment is kind of funny. Sounds like all for people dying early so that it cost the government less. That sounds more like a death panel to me than anything Obamacare has suggested.

The difference between my observation, and Obama's mandates is at the center of the battle between the conservatives and the liberals on just about every issue. It is the battle between indiviuals rights, and the governments power.

the difference is freedom, freedom to choose, freedom for individuals to make up their own minds. The left wants government to tell you, mandate, your behavior, how you must behave, all for the collective good, of course. The conservatives want you to understand that you already have these freedoms to choose what ever you want (not without consequence, of course), and hope you choose wisely.

The left sees your freedom to choose for youself as the problem. That's why they need "death panels", to inform you of the choice they have made for you.

The left sees your freedom to choose for youself as the problem. That's why they need "death panels", to inform you of the choice they have made for you.

A gross fallacy. One could just as well say the right proposes allowing the private insurers to make those same choices for you through the market, and that, by raising your premiums, it's just free market capitalism at work. (like "letting detroit go bankrupt", as it were)

There are no "death panels", except in your imagination...and eventually on the underwriters' drawing boards. This is a "solution" the private sector is already developing.

It is the battle between indiviuals rights, and the governments power. the difference is freedom, freedom to choose, freedom

The refusal to discuss discrete actual things gives the lie to your rants.

You don't have any valid specific complaints, so you abstract out beyond the realm of meaninglessness.

And then, of course, you have to lie about what other people supposedly think to win your shadowboxing match.

Really?

So, where does the banning of 16 oz drinks lead?

You fail to see the loss in freedom with thses types ofthings, including Obamacare, and for that matter, Romneycare, becauseyou just don't get it. you are no longer free when government tells you what you can and cannot do.

The left sees your freedom to choose for youself as the problem. That's why they need "death panels", to inform you of the choice they have made for you.

A gross fallacy. One could just as well say the right proposes allowing the private insurers to make those same choices for you through the market, and that, by raising your premiums, it's just free market capitalism at work. (like "letting detroit go bankrupt", as it were)

There are no "death panels", except in your imagination...and eventually on the underwriters' drawing boards. This is a "solution" the private sector is already developing.

You clearly don't understand the difference between government mandates and the free market. If smoking is an issue, governemnt withr bans it or refuse you care.

In the private sector, if there are enough people who smoke that are interested in a particular health care plan, private insurance offers it.

BTW: iI didn't say their were death panels. ms cricket brought it up, Iwas simply using the same language for clarity. The left does intend to limit your choices. That's why we have bans on drinks over 16 oz. , banning of transfats, sugar, butter, in resteraunts, do you really think it is going to stop there?

The left sees your freedom to choose for youself as the problem. That's why they need "death panels", to inform you of the choice they have made for you.

A gross fallacy. One could just as well say the right proposes allowing the private insurers to make those same choices for you through the market, and that, by raising your premiums, it's just free market capitalism at work. (like "letting detroit go bankrupt", as it were)

There are no "death panels", except in your imagination...and eventually on the underwriters' drawing boards. This is a "solution" the private sector is already developing.

If the private insurers have death panels then so does Obamacare. It is the same thing except that with Obamacare you are FORCED to buy insurance. Otherwise you would be free to find the insurer you wanted or pay cash.

The left sees your freedom to choose for youself as the problem. That's why they need "death panels", to inform you of the choice they have made for you.

A gross fallacy. One could just as well say the right proposes allowing the private insurers to make those same choices for you through the market, and that, by raising your premiums, it's just free market capitalism at work. (like "letting detroit go bankrupt", as it were)

There are no "death panels", except in your imagination...and eventually on the underwriters' drawing boards. This is a "solution" the private sector is already developing.

If the private insurers have death panels then so does Obamacare. It is the same thing except that with Obamacare you are FORCED to buy insurance. Otherwise you would be free to find the insurer you wanted or pay cash.

No, it doesn't, and no, it really isn't.

Are you saying you have a wealth of health insurance choices with your employer? Different carriers, a la carte services...? Really?!

The alternative is the individual insurance market, which is so underenrolled that the market demands 50-75% higher premiums.